McCain Can’t Plead Ignorance in the Age of Google — Nobody Can
Senator John McCain’s campaign has “abruptly canceled” a fundraiser that had been set to take place at the home of a Texas oilman. The host, Clayton Williams, had run for governor against Ann Richards back in 1990 and, during the campaign, unfortunately at one point compared the weather to a rape — “as long as it’s inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it.” He was trying to be funny. It wasn’t. These words were picked up by the media and by Richards’ campaign and Williams lost.In canceling their fundraiser, McCain’s campaign spokesman said, “These were obviously incredibly offensive remarks that the campaign was unaware of at the time this event was scheduled.”
Now the questions begin: Should he give back the money? How will this affect the campaign? What will Obama do? Shouldn’t he have known?
That last question is, perhaps, worth thinking about.
There’s a long and proud American tradition of political figures getting torpedoed by words and deeds from the past. Often it is some sort of nominee who’s inane or insane remarks from their youth get unearthed. Or weird academic writings that had been read by maybe seven Ph.D.s come to light. Or the figure has a vulgar sense of humor (like our man Williams). Or a family member has a checkered past.
Opponents pounce on such things, and that’s understandable. But in the past, the test in people’s living rooms has been: how does the principal deal with the revelations? For some high-profile nominees, such as for positions that require Senate confirmation, we are dumbfounded that the offense had not come up in the background checks, but for less weighty things there’s this sense of sympathy. You can’t know everything about everybody.
But now that’s changed. Really, it’s hard not to know more about most people than they would like to have known.
Take that fellow who ran for Texas governor and tripped up the Senator from Arizona. One Google search yields his Wikipedia entry as the #2 hit. Wikipedia (and this was current as of March 27), highlights the offending remark. OK, some purists say Wikipedia is prone to manipulation, so follow one more link to the source article. There it is, the remark and the ensuing controversy. That “research” took sixty seconds, including reading time.
Yet, the McCain campaign treats the remark as if it was some obscure thing they could not have possibly known. The only way the campaign could have been “unaware of” the remark “at the time the event was scheduled” would be if no one actually looked into who this guy was. Probably a better response from the Straight Talk Express would have been: “We were moving too fast and just didn’t do our homework.”
This isn’t just McCain’s problem. Senator Barack Obama’s campaign has been plagued by similar Google-blindness and tin-ear moves. James Johnson, the consummate insider, reviewing the Running Mates of Change? Please. Tony Rezko, radioactive fundraiser and neighbor selling a strip of vacant land to the senator from Illinois? He was “glowing” at the time of the sale, under investigation by Federal prosecutors. And for intemperate, embarrassing remarks, see the entry under Rev. Wright.
The author: “Shouldn’t he have known? That last question is, perhaps, worth thinking about.”
Let’s just do that right now.
So, this “Clayton Williams” stuff of McCain’s campaign staff is supposed to nullify/equal out Barack Obama’s personal choice of a 20-year-long mentor of anti-American and racist Rev. Wright, a decade long relationship with anti-American and domestic terrorist William Ayers, and crook Tony Rezko?!
Gee…moral relativism sure makes liberal excuse-making – err – “thinking” easy.
What a load of horse hockey.
McCain has just dropped about 20 points in my eyes for his priggish pettiness.
It just occurred to me how little McCain – or what McCain does – matters to me in this election. To me, it’s all about stopping the left’s empty suit front man, Obama.
It looks like everybody is going to lose in this election cycle. It’s just the degree to which we lose for which we are casting a vote. It’s referendum on socialist universalism. I’ll vote ‘against’, but how depressing it is to always play defense.
How demoralizing it is that the GOP has used the ‘Well they are worse!’ alibi to become the slovenly, complacent, and undisciplined party they are today. How sad that the only thing saving the GOP is the fact that the Democrats are so malicious.
Rome fell for many reasons, but the main was that the character of the leadership ebbed downward, observe how similar the once great character of the American leadership settles toward the sewar.
Bill, if you read a bit about Lyndon Johnson, John Nance Garner, and Joe Kennedy — or go back to the Tammany Hall days, or the Prendergast machine — I think you’ll find that the character of our politicians hasn’t changed. Ben Franklin was known to enjoy an off-color joke and a little canoodling. Sara’s point about “priggish pettiness” is a good one, but in this election, I’m not sure I see McCain has a lot of choice; if he weren’t doing it, the legacy media would do it for him.
Thought provoking article as usual, Brad. However, I can’t agree with your conclusions that there is an implicit guilt by association assumed by a candidate whenever someone associated with his campaign is discovered to have said or done something stupid, and that, in this Google age, it is inexcusable for him not to have known his associate had done so. By that lofty measure, any future candidate might just as well put a gun to his head the moment he decides to run for office. Everyone is guilty of misjudgment or wrongheadedness from time to time. Even some of the most extreme crimes have statutes of limitation placed on them. Stupid, insensitive comments are forms of Constitutionally protected speech, not crimes and misdemeanors. They are punishable by the loss of an election as it was in Williams’ case 18 years ago. Yielding to “bushwhack politics” makes for cowards in office. In my opinion, McCain showed his cowardice by withdrawing from this event over this issue. Give me an honest, courageous, even “politically incorrect” candidate anytime.
By the way, I really like the photo you used in your header: Just the observational angle most of us will ever have.
I am not surprised at all these cover-ups. John McCain cant pretend he never knew. Anyway, whatever he does or donot do never gets my attention because I have already made my choice to vote for Obama. We just need a fresh face.
Rawlings:
Coverups as you say.
Why don’t you investigate your own Democratic Party and see 1000 of coverups.
Explain why all communists are rallying around Obama and get back to us and give us explanation.
If you can give us explanation then maybe we shall vote for Obama after all.
I hold no torch for Obama but I am tired of n****r haters conjuring up reasons not to vote for Obama, most of it is drivel & fantasy. Be realistic, listen to what Obama has to say, consider the polls, & decide how you will act when Obama is elected. REB SHLOMO